3094
Comment:
|
5266
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 3: | Line 3: |
=== Drag on an accelerating launch loop vehicle with a hemispherical nose === | |
Line 4: | Line 5: |
Based on [[ http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670015714 | Trajectory Optimization for an Apollo-type Vehicle under Entry Conditions Encountered During Lunar Returm ]] by John W. Young (famous astronaut) and Robert E. Smith Jr., May 1967, NASA TR-R-258, Langley Research Center. | I am not an aeronautical engineer and probably misunderstand the sources. In any case, the numbers are approximate, and should be treated skeptically. Launch loop capsule drag and heating is acceptable above 80 km altituded. However, incoming debris impactors in decaying orbits will be more unpredictable when the drag is higher, and more difficult to shield or dodge. Perhaps most of them may be intercepted a few orbit earlier, reducing flux at launch loop track level. |
Line 6: | Line 9: |
'''Equations on Page 5 in Foot-second-slug-BTU :''' | Based on [[ http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670015714 | Trajectory Optimization for an Apollo-type Vehicle under Entry Conditions Encountered During Lunar Returm ]] by John W. Young (famous astronaut) and Robert E. Smith Jr., May 1967, NASA TR-R-258, Langley Research Center. ==== Equations on Page 5 in Foot-second-slug-BTU : ==== |
Line 12: | Line 17: |
. Equations from [[ http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1964-1313 | Shock Layer Radiation During Hypervelocity Re-Entry]] by Robert M. Nerem and George H. Stickford, AIAA Entry Technology Conference, CP-9, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Oct. 1964, pp 158-169. ''(not downloaded yet)'' | . Equations from [[ http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1964-1313 | Shock Layer Radiation During Hypervelocity Re-Entry]] by Robert M. Nerem and George H. Stickford, AIAA Entry Technology Conference, CP-9, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Oct. 1964, pp 158-169. ''(not downloaded or read yet)'' |
Line 20: | Line 25: |
'''Metric equations: ''' | ==== Metric equations: ==== |
Line 22: | Line 27: |
. Metric 1a convective power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_c = $ 3.53e-4 $ \rho^{1/2} ~ V^3 $ Watts . Metric 1b radiative power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_r = $1.24e-69 $ \rho^{3/2} ~ V^{20} $ Watts These are for a 1 foot diameter nose, and scale by $ {r_n}^{-1/2} $ according to equation 4B-4 on page 520 of Part 4B (Entry Heat Transfer) of the SAE Aerospace Applied Thermodynamics Manual. That sites reference 1, [[ http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930084817 | A study of the motion and aerodynamic heating of missiles entering the earth's atmosphere at high supersonic speeds ]], H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr, NACA TN 4047, 1957. If $ r_n $ is in meters, scale by 0.552 $ {r_n}^{-1/2} $. |
. Metric 1a convective power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_c = $ 3.53e-4 $ \rho^{1/2} ~ V^3 $ Watts . Metric 1b radiative power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_r = $1.24e-69 $ \rho^{3/2} ~ V^{20} $ Watts These are for a 1 foot diameter nose, and scale by $ {r_n}^{-1/2} $ according to equation 4B-4 on page 520 of Part 4B (Entry Heat Transfer) of the SAE Aerospace Applied Thermodynamics Manual. That book cites reference 1, [[ http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930084817 | A study of the motion and aerodynamic heating of missiles entering the earth's atmosphere at high supersonic speeds ]], H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr, NACA TN 4047, 1957. If $ r_n $ is in meters, scale by 0.552 $ {r_n}^{-1/2} $. |
Line 29: | Line 34: |
. Total nose convective power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_c = $ 6.1e-4 $ ( {r_n}^3 ~ \rho )^{1/2} ~ V^3 $ Watts . Total nose radiative power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_r = $ 2.2e-69 $ ( {r_n} ~ \rho )^{3/2} ~ V^{20} $ Watts |
. Total nose convective power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_c = $ 6.1e-4 $ ( {r_n}^3 ~ \rho )^{1/2} ~ V^3 $ Watts . Total nose radiative power: $ ~ ~ \dot Q_r = $ 2.2e-69 $ ( {r_n} ~ \rho )^{3/2} ~ V^{20} $ Watts |
Line 34: | Line 39: |
Assume constant acceleration for the vehicle, $ v = a t $, to a maximum velocity $ V = a T $. | Assume constant acceleration for the vehicle, $ v = a t $, to a maximum velocity $ V = a T $. |
Line 42: | Line 47: |
There will also be additional exit or climb-out time for the launch loop added to $ t_eff $, TBD. | There will also be additional exit or climb-out time for the launch loop added to $ t_{eff} $, TBD. This additional time will be proportionally larger for the radiation fraction, but that will remain small, especially in thinner, higher altitude atmosphere. |
Line 44: | Line 49: |
==== Examples: ==== | The drag losses are much higher; most of the lost energy ends up heating the upper atmosphere (where it radiates efficiently into space, not to the ground). The drag power is $ P = C_D ~ \rho ~ Area ~ V^3 $ and the drag loss energy is $ E = C_D ~ \rho ~ Area ~ V^3 T/4 $. |
Line 46: | Line 51: |
For a 1 meter diameter nose, V=11 km/s, a=3*9.8m/s, T=374 s, and density at 80, 100, and 120 km: | ==== Examples ==== |
Line 48: | Line 53: |
|| altitude km || || 80 || 100 || 120 || || density kg/m^3^ || || 1.846e-5 || 5.604e-7 || 2.222e-8 || || $ \dot Q_c $ W || || || || || || $ \dot Q_r $ W || || || || || || || teff || || $ Q_c $ J || 94 || || || || || $ Q_r $ J || 18 || || || || |
For a 1 meter diameter nose, V=11 km/s, a=3*9.8m/s, T=374 s, C,,D,, = 2.0 and density at 80, 100, and 120 km: || altitude km || 80 || 100 || 120 || || density kg/m^3^ ||1.85e-5 ||5.60e-7 ||2.22e-8 || || $ \dot Q_c ~~$ kW || 3500 || 610 || 120 || || $ \dot Q_r ~~$ kW || 120 || 0.62 || 0.005 || ||<-5)> exponent ||$t_{eff}$|| || $ Q_c ~~$ MJ || 330 || 57 || 11 || 3 || 94 || || $ Q_r ~~$ KJ || 2100 || 110 || 0.09 || 20 || 18 || || $ Q_{total}~~$ MJ || 330 || 57 || 11 || || heat fraction || 1.1e-3 || 1.9e-4 || 3.7e-5 || || drag loss MJ || 14000 || 440 || 17 || || drag fraction || 4.8e-2 || 1.4e-3 || 5.7e-5 || || heat/drag || 0.023 || 0.13 || 0.65 || [[attachment:HeatDrag.ods]] || Vehicle || Mass kg || Diameter || Length || || Loop || 5000 || 2 m || tbd || || Apollo CM || 5900 || 3.9 m || 3.2 m || || Shuttle || 68600 ||<-2>300 m² surface est.|| || Dragon || 4200+3310 || 3.7 m || 6.1 m || ==== Validity? ==== The Young and Smith paper was for Apollo lunar reentry, and the equations may not generalize to lower drag regions. Exit trajectory must still be computed, keeping in mind that Earth's rotation velocity (470 m/s) should be added to the outgoing orbit velocity. Apollo ballistic parameter 322 kg/m² ± 40%, launch loop 1590 kg/m². A "pill shaped" launch loop capsule may not reenter safely; wings or cone-shaped capsule is probably required for manned entry. |
Hypervelocity Drag
Drag on an accelerating launch loop vehicle with a hemispherical nose
I am not an aeronautical engineer and probably misunderstand the sources. In any case, the numbers are approximate, and should be treated skeptically.
Launch loop capsule drag and heating is acceptable above 80 km altituded. However, incoming debris impactors in decaying orbits will be more unpredictable when the drag is higher, and more difficult to shield or dodge. Perhaps most of them may be intercepted a few orbit earlier, reducing flux at launch loop track level.
Based on Trajectory Optimization for an Apollo-type Vehicle under Entry Conditions Encountered During Lunar Returm by John W. Young (famous astronaut) and Robert E. Smith Jr., May 1967, NASA TR-R-258, Langley Research Center.
Equations on Page 5 in Foot-second-slug-BTU :
1a convective power: ~ ~ \dot Q_c = 20 \rho^{1/2} \left( V \over 1000 \right)^3 Btu/ft2-s
1b radiative power: ~ ~ \dot Q_r = 6.1 \rho^{3/2} \left( V \over { 10 000 } \right)^{20} Btu/ft2-s
- Equations assume an effective nose radius of 1 foot
Equations from Shock Layer Radiation During Hypervelocity Re-Entry by Robert M. Nerem and George H. Stickford, AIAA Entry Technology Conference, CP-9, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Oct. 1964, pp 158-169. (not downloaded or read yet)
Density in slugs/ft3: multiply kg/m3 by 1.9403203e-3
Power in Btu/ft2-s: multiply by 11350.54 to get W/m2
Velocity in ft/s: divide m/s by 0.3048
Metric equations:
Metric 1a convective power: ~ ~ \dot Q_c = 3.53e-4 \rho^{1/2} ~ V^3 Watts
Metric 1b radiative power: ~ ~ \dot Q_r = 1.24e-69 \rho^{3/2} ~ V^{20} Watts
These are for a 1 foot diameter nose, and scale by {r_n}^{-1/2} according to equation 4B-4 on page 520 of Part 4B (Entry Heat Transfer) of the SAE Aerospace Applied Thermodynamics Manual. That book cites reference 1, A study of the motion and aerodynamic heating of missiles entering the earth's atmosphere at high supersonic speeds, H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr, NACA TN 4047, 1957. If r_n is in meters, scale by 0.552 {r_n}^{-1/2} .
If we scale these for a half-spherical nose, area \pi {r_n}^2 , we get:
Total nose convective power: ~ ~ \dot Q_c = 6.1e-4 ( {r_n}^3 ~ \rho )^{1/2} ~ V^3 Watts
Total nose radiative power: ~ ~ \dot Q_r = 2.2e-69 ( {r_n} ~ \rho )^{3/2} ~ V^{20} Watts
Effective time:
Assume constant acceleration for the vehicle, v = a t , to a maximum velocity V = a T .
define t_{eff} = {\Large { T \over { n+1 } } } = { \Large { V \over { a ( n+1) } } }
If the drag power \dot Q = k v^n = k a^n t^n , then the time integrated power:
Q=k a^n{\Large {T^{n+1}\over {n+1}}}=k a^n T^n{\Large {T\over{n+1}}} = k V^n t_{eff} = \dot Q_{max} t_{eff}
There will also be additional exit or climb-out time for the launch loop added to t_{eff} , TBD. This additional time will be proportionally larger for the radiation fraction, but that will remain small, especially in thinner, higher altitude atmosphere.
The drag losses are much higher; most of the lost energy ends up heating the upper atmosphere (where it radiates efficiently into space, not to the ground). The drag power is P = C_D ~ \rho ~ Area ~ V^3 and the drag loss energy is E = C_D ~ \rho ~ Area ~ V^3 T/4 .
Examples
For a 1 meter diameter nose, V=11 km/s, a=3*9.8m/s, T=374 s, CD = 2.0 and density at 80, 100, and 120 km:
altitude km |
80 |
100 |
120 |
||
density kg/m3 |
1.85e-5 |
5.60e-7 |
2.22e-8 |
||
\dot Q_c ~~ kW |
3500 |
610 |
120 |
||
\dot Q_r ~~ kW |
120 |
0.62 |
0.005 |
||
exponent |
t_{eff} |
||||
Q_c ~~ MJ |
330 |
57 |
11 |
3 |
94 |
Q_r ~~ KJ |
2100 |
110 |
0.09 |
20 |
18 |
Q_{total}~~ MJ |
330 |
57 |
11 |
||
heat fraction |
1.1e-3 |
1.9e-4 |
3.7e-5 |
||
drag loss MJ |
14000 |
440 |
17 |
||
drag fraction |
4.8e-2 |
1.4e-3 |
5.7e-5 |
||
heat/drag |
0.023 |
0.13 |
0.65 |
Vehicle |
Mass kg |
Diameter |
Length |
Loop |
5000 |
2 m |
tbd |
Apollo CM |
5900 |
3.9 m |
3.2 m |
Shuttle |
68600 |
300 m² surface est. |
|
Dragon |
4200+3310 |
3.7 m |
6.1 m |
Validity?
The Young and Smith paper was for Apollo lunar reentry, and the equations may not generalize to lower drag regions. Exit trajectory must still be computed, keeping in mind that Earth's rotation velocity (470 m/s) should be added to the outgoing orbit velocity. Apollo ballistic parameter 322 kg/m² ± 40%, launch loop 1590 kg/m². A "pill shaped" launch loop capsule may not reenter safely; wings or cone-shaped capsule is probably required for manned entry.